• Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?

    Go here:

    Edit Account Details and Profile

NEWS Air Force leadership talks frankly about pilot retention

RadicalDude said:
BAH: Couple of hundred/month x 20
Sep pay: same
Medical: literally thousands per year per dependent x 20
DLA: ~1000/PCS
CDC, etc.: who knows...

Over a career and retirement...It adds up.

Ask your union rep, I'm sure he understands the power of cumulative dues...
Click to expand...
I'm just curious - are you aware a civilian company could hire two people with almost identical qualifications on the same day and pay them salaries that differ substantially, simply because one was better at negotiating the job offer?
 
EODDave said:
Dude,

Raging against married guys with families? Really? WTF? If that is what you think is wrong with the Navy, then obviously you don't get it.
Click to expand...

I'm not raging against married guys with families. I'm making a point that if you're gonna be "disgusted" by a service member getting gender reassignment surgery, then I'm allowed to complain about all the other stuff we pay for and fund--starting with dependents.

For the record I think it's wonderful that TRICARE covers everyone like it does. I wish we had something like that for the entire country.

But if you think being more accepting of trans service members is what is wrong with the Navy, then you don't get it.
 
I think RD's point (and RD, do correct me if i'm wrong, please) is that the Navy pays for all sorts of things that not every person uses, gender reassignment, Tricare for kids, BAH for "with dependents", etc.

They pay for cancer treatment, and I don't use that. How is that different than them paying for gender reassignment surgery that I also don't use? The difference is that some see gender reassignment as an optional or semi-optional thing, and others see it as a medical necessity. (And there are probably many people who see it as something somewhere along a continuum between both.) So the former group would never buy the cancer treatment analogy, and the latter sees them as more or less comparable.

On a semi-related not, is gender dsyphoria now a disqualifying medical condition or a condition requiring a waiver, if it exists and is diagnosed before entering service? If the working theory is that GD is simply a medical condition, like any other, and thus service members can get time off for treatment and have treatment paid for as they would any other condition, it seems to me, from the outside looking in, that it would also be treated like any other medical condition when trying to join. It's going to be expensive to treat and require a not-insignificant amount of time away from work, and access to care seems like it would affect deployability. Those seem like some of the criteria used when looking at what conditions are acceptable or waiverable, no?
 
My takeaway from transgender training is that the door is open for folks to join with an identified GD condition.

edit: nevermind……..ill leave it at that
 
Last edited:
MIDNJAC said:
My takeaway from transgender training, though not actually voiced to the detail of my follow on hypothesis, is that the door is open for folks to join with an identified GD condition. Where my worst case mind takes that, is a whole bunch of people who wouldn't have otherwise had an interest in serving, deciding to join for the free medical treatment, and a non-deployable status for a pretty intangible amount of time (if not an entire enlistment), with no intention of doing anything beyond getting what they sought out of the deal……and by that, I mean that it didn't sound like there was some obligated payback time, beyond what would be a normal first enlistment contract (since Tricare benefits obviously do not traditionally incur such obligations). That part worries me, not based on the person specifically, but on the thought that we are going to dump a bunch of money into a new accession who will not actually contribute. I might completely misunderstand the ins and outs of this initiative in this respect, but if my impression is true, spending 10-100k on a kid who will never deploy and will likely be in some form of limdu status isn't a great move in this fiscal climate. I hope I'm wrong here. I also realize that my statement sort of implies that I see such treatment as being more along the lines of "not medically necessary", but I'd also say that nobody is going to get signed on with any number of medically disqualifying ailments who's treatments are without any doubt, medically necessary for the individual. We aren't in the medical welfare business for the pure sake of society's medical welfare……we are the business of warfare, with medical benefits for those who have served, or are currently serving in a useful capacity.
Click to expand...

This makes perfect sense, and I don't think it necessarily implies that gender reassignment and other therapies are not medically necessary. There are all sorts of conditions that are disqualifying from service. If they crop up after you are enlisted or commissioned, you get the treatment. But because of the expense and inconvenience of that, people aren't allowed to join if they already have those conditions. Why should GD be any different? It seems like the underlying point of all these changes is that GD is a medical condition, and should be treated as such by the military. But it seems like that should go both ways (er, no pun intended). It's just a medical condition, so someone needs to take a look at the way treating that condition affects someone's ability to serve effectively and decide if someone known to have that condition should be able to join, just as they've done with diabetes and cancer and asthma and any number of other conditions.

Not allowing someone from joining if they have GD does not preclude the military from providing the appropriate treatments if someone who has already joined is later diagnosed.

Whether or not someone would be medically retired or separated when diagnosed is a separate question. But at the very least, looking at whether someone with a condition known to have expensive treatment and which will cause significant time away from work should be able to join in the first place seems perfectly acceptable. If the bottom line is that this is a medical condition, just like any other, than treat it that way. And that means the possibility of making it a disqualifying condition. Not because it's gross or weird or uncomfortable, but because treatment is expensive and not really compatible with military work requirements.
 
I discussed this very question to our base shrink, who happens to be my next door neighbor. GD would, more than likely, be DQ for aviation, not necessarily for enlistment. We have plenty of enlisted troops that come in with a whole host of mental health issues in their background. Frankly, I'm frustrated that MEPS/NCM doesn't do a better job of screening people out who have issues that lead to adjustment disorder. I've had to separate several first term Sailors in my command for adjustment disorders and various anxiety disorders - people who are so freaked out at the prospect of working on the flight deck that they have panic attacks. Just a waste of everyone's time and money.
 
As one can imagine our brethren in light blue also have some strong opinions on this too, here are a pair of quotes from their forum:

There is no denying decisions at the very top, particularly strategic ones are often a choice between two uncomfortable paths. I liken it to decisions made by senior generals in wartime who know men will be lost in combat and find a way to disconnect from reality as they make choices that will most certainly send men to their death in an effort to save a country or a way of life. What gets me is the double-speak, the slight of hand, the outright lies as he says one thing to your face then goes behind your back to advocate a lower hours requirement with Congress. Be a fucking LEADER, stand up and tell the truth to your men and women...I've done what I can within my power and I am left with no other choice to save the service. I know Goldfein, Rand, and many of the others and I don't simply understand why they surrendered their integrity.
Click to expand...


Jesus, why does HAF think that the solution lies external to the AF/DoD? If you want to keep us in, improve conditions on the inside. CSAF needs to man up and tell the combatant commanders that they don't phucking need deployed rated staffers. Break pilots out from the LAF promotion board; I shouldn't have to compete with a finance officer who wins FGOY because he's a church elder, chili-cookoff winning, soccer mom, Girl Scout troop leader. Fix the assignment system; I'll volunteer for a shitty assignment if given a guaranteed, desirable follow-on. Money isn't everything, but don't insult us with correcting for 20 years of inflation and act like you're doing us a favor.
Click to expand...
 
Saw this on the other forum:

There was a meeting last week between ~10 USAF pilots and Sen. Tom Cotton (R- Arkansas) and Sen. Angus King (I - Maine). Both are members of the Senate Armed Services Committee. The meeting was the result of a pilot writing Sen. Cotton to explain how serious the pilot retention crisis is and suggesting that Congress would do well to get unfiltered opinions of line pilots as opposed to top brass or DC staff officers. Sen. Cotton requested exactly that from SAF and the meeting was held.

Many people have expressed an interest in how the AF pilot retention roundtable went in DC... Senior civilian and military leadership know there is a problem and are actively working to identify what are the causes of this problem, and how they can fix it. Congress and the Air Force clearly are concerned about pilot retention by bringing in pilots to discuss this issue face-to-face, unfiltered. The pilots represented the full spectrum of AF communities (F-15, B-1, C-17, C-130, KC-135, E-8, MQ-9).
In no particular order, these were some of the topics brought up by the pilots to Senators Cotton and King:
1. Quality of life and job satisfaction are the primary reasons for people separating, and the AF can't offer enough money to compete with the airlines.
2. AEF deployments, and the threat of them, force people out. AF pilots don't leave because of the deployments with their squadrons, it's due to the the 365 non-vols (passed over majors are especially vulnerable to these).
3. Everyone has to check all the boxes to be the next CSAF due to the up or out promotion system. If you know you're not going to make O-5 or O-6, and the airlines are hiring...might as well cut your losses early (AF wise) and get an earlier start on your 2nd career (airlines, or whatever else you chose to do).
The Senators asked about what time do you know if you're on "the path", to which the group replied - as a captain (based on the strats, upgrades, and jobs you have).
4. What is the professional development for officers that aren't on the path to be a sq/cc? What are their opportunities as an officer/aviator? We need those 'old and crusty' experienced pilots to guide and mentor young pilots, but those IPs/EPs are exactly who the AF is losing.
5. Pilots aren't valued as pilots. Guidance on OPR writing is that only 1-2 bullets should be about flying.
6. While it's unlikely the AF will bring warrant officers back, the AF could try something similar to what the Aussies/Brits have: a 2-track system, leadership vs flying, which enables pilots to choose around their mid-career what path they want to take. (Senator King specifically asked "you don't have that choice?" "No").
7. PCSing excessively (particularly as a FGO) every couple years results in no stability for families, and is especially challenging for spouses to have their own career.
8. While the AF only enlists or commissions the service member, the AF retains families. Military families already sacrifice so much....If a pilot reaches a point where he/she has to choose between their family or their career, many will choose their family and separate to a new career.
9. The number of taskings and missions for the AF has increased, yet we are the smallest size we've ever been. We have fewer people doing more work (including additional duties), and that burns people out.
10. The AF doesn't have a shortage of pilots to fly the jets (specifically fighter pilots flying fighter jets)..... It has a shortage of pilots to fill staff jobs. At the 10-12 year point, when pilots typically separate, is when pilots go from being in the jet to being out of the jet (staff). Some people just want to fly and keep flying, and will jump to the airlines/guard/reserves to focus on aviation.
 
Flash said:
5. Pilots aren't valued as pilots.
Click to expand...
. . . . . . . or warfighters for that matter. I was in a meeting last week and heard a very senior AF Cyber Officer (retired) actually disparage the fact that Air Force pilots were getting a bonus. The tenor and tone of his comments suggested the future of the Air Force lies in Space & Cyber warfare - pilots are an antiquated part of the service that, unfortunately, need to be accommodated until manned aviation is gone.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top